Fibro‐Osseous Lesions Of The Craniofacial Complex In Horses: 30 Cases (2001‐2019)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and outcome for horses with fibro-osseous lesions of the craniofacial complex. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter case series. ANIMALS: Thirty horses evaluated for fibro-osseous lesions of the skull from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2019 in four centers. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for signalment, clinical presentation, histological and diagnostic imaging findings, treatment instituted, and outcome. Long-term outcome information was obtained by owner questionnaire or the medical record. RESULTS: Diagnoses included ossifying fibroma in 20 of 30 horses, osteoma in eight of 30 horses, and fibrous dysplasia in two of 30 horses. Twelve of 30 lesions were diagnosed in horses <1 year old, and 20 of 30 lesions originated from the rostral mandible. The most common treatment was rostral mandibulectomy. Recurrence was not reported after complete excision. Incomplete excision was confirmed in eight horses (four ossifying fibromas, three osteomas, and one fibrous dysplasia), and follow-up information was available for seven horses. Recurrence occurred in one horse, while six horses had long-term resolution of clinical signs. Prognosis for survival and return to use was excellent in 23 horses with long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: Fibro-osseous lesions were uncommon in this multicenter study; they were most commonly diagnosed in young animals and most frequently affected the rostral mandible. Long-term survival was excellent. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The definitive diagnosis of fibro-osseous lesions of the craniofacial complex in horses is made from results of histopathology and cannot be determined on the basis of clinical presentation alone. Surgical excision is indicated, and prognosis can be favorable even when complete surgical margins are not obtained.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".